"Modern Racism and the Vikings. Part II: Viking Age?"

“Modern Racism and the Vikings.” “Part II: Viking Age?” Steven Blowney August, 2020 The phrase “Viking Age” is a historical construction: a label created by scholars to designated a time and place. With the Viking Age, the construction designates the people and events from Scandinavia from about 750 AD to about 1100. The idea was adopted in the 19th Century, which was a time of European nationalism and global empires. The purpose of this essay is to begin to exam the scholarship around the “Viking Age” and determine if there are elements of racism in the construction’s use. The Viking Age is examined by two academic disciplines: Literature and Archaeology. Much of the information used by historians to explain the Vikings has been derived from those two disciplines. Over the years, literary scholars have translated a variety of sources for use. Archaeologists have contributed cultural information through the discovery of material culture dated to the place and period. Recorded in the 12th and 13th Centuries, Viking Literature mostly consists of manuscripts from Iceland, and are generically called the Sagas and the Myths. The modern discovery of this literature is explained by Andrew Wawn in The Vikings and the Victorians (1). The book has three prominent themes: the collecting and translating of manuscripts by antiquarians, the changes within European Scholarship in the mid to late 1800s, and the popularization of the Viking Age that is still present today. Thomas Spray is also concerned with the 19th Century British interest in the Sagas and Myths (2) in his thesis, Patterns of Nationalist Discourse in the Early Reception of the Icelandic Sagas in Britain. As the title suggests, the relationship between British Nationalism and the Sagas are paramount here. The work explains the context in different ways than Wawn. Antiquarianism was an educated gentleman’s pastime. In the 18th and early 19th Centuries, the study of old manuscripts was not conducted by professionals. Many consider Antiquarianism to be of little use in the light of more rigorous, scientific methods. But there is no denying that these gentlemen antiquarians collected and began translating these Northern European manuscripts. The antiquarian interest in Iceland and its manuscripts was of particular interest to the English. Spray writes that in 1772 the Swede Uno von Troil suggested that important English history was contained in the Sagas (3). The suggestion was taken up by Bishop Thomas Percy, who translated Mallet’s Northern Antiquities for use. Another antiquarian was Joesph Banks, who was President of the Royal Society of London. Banks travelled to Iceland with von Troil, and brought back 120 books and other manuscripts to the British Museum. The President of the Royal Society had such an interest, that he at one time seriously encouraged the military annexation of Iceland, which was under Danish rule. This almost happened in 1801. Another important antiquarian was Sir Walter Scott. Both Wawn and Spray discuss Scott’s novel The Pirate. Set in the Northern Scottish Islands of the Shetlands, the novel’s time period is Scott’s, the early 19th Century (The novel was published in 1814). The characters of the work can trace their ancestry all the way back to the Viking Age, and state as much with pride. There is even a family that says their Viking ancestors were wild berserks. In this way Walter Scott introduced the idea that the people of the British Isles had Scandinavian predecessors, and that many of the haloed institutions and stubborn love of liberty derives from there. After the antiquarians, Wawn presents four chapters which he entitles, “Creating the Canon” (4). These chapters discuss Laing’s Heimskringla, Tenger’s Frithiof’s Saga, Desant’s Njal’s Saga, and various attempts to translate the North Myths, The Eddas. The impression I had reading these chapters was that the Heimskringla represented a basic history of the North, Frithiof was the model for a romance, Njal’s Saga was the epic story, and The Eddas represented beliefs. By translating these Northern stories, England was given a basic understanding of the literature. T. Spray is concerned with these stories and their translators (5). Laing is presented as so nationalistic that he might be considered racist. The Eddas are considered in Spray’s discussion of Mallet’s Northern Antiquities. The influence of Frithiof’s Saga is seen as extraordinary, at least in the 19th Century. Curiously, Spray does not discuss George W. Desant, who is called a racist in the thesis’ introduction. The author does not explain this statement, but mentions Desant through the work almost as if to take him for granted. To give no explanation to Desant’s racism is not simply disappointing, but, considering, this omission makes an intriguing assertion useless. One of the reasons for finding and translating Northern manuscripts was what is called the “new philology,” which is comparative philology. Before the 19th Century, the dominant scholarly and educated languages were Ancient Greek and Roman Latin. These Southern European languages were considering the “mother-tongues” until the discovery of Sanskrit, which was older. After that discovery, Greek and Latin became just other parts in the Indo-European Family of languages. This change also elevated the Northern European Languages (Sometimes called Germanic. Sometimes called Teutonic.) to equal status with Greek and Latin. German philologists began examining ancient and medieval manuscripts, and concluded that there were relations between them in words syntax in each language, such as Old German, Old Norse, and Old English. This was comparative philology. Though not the only one, Jacob Grimm was one of those philologists (6). Using this comparative method, Grimm was able to connect the Northern Languages, and then the mythologies of those languages. Grimm believed that the Teutonic Languages had a common ancestor, and that the myths and legends of Northern Europe had that same common ancestor. This thinking allowed for the reconstruction of a Teutonic or Germanic set of myths, and so give the Germans a sense common identity. That identity was call Volksgeist or folk-spirit. Carole Cusack believes that a result Grimm’s thinking was Richard Wagner’s Ring Cycle (7). This long opera (or series of operas) was an attempt to tell the National Germanic Myth, and create unity among its peoples. Composed using Norse Myths, Icelandic Sagas (the Saga of the Volsungs), and the Neiblungenlied, the opera is fantastically romantic, violently heroic, and epically tragic. Whether or not Wagner succeeded in creating unity is a matter of argument, but the work expressed Jacob Grimm’s belief in a national myth for Germans. I want to pause here and state that my knowledge of Jacob Grimm is only his scholarship. I suspect Grimm was a nationalist in the time of Romantic Nationalism. As for Richard Wagner, I have read he was an Anti-Semite, and that he knew Arthur Gobineau, author of An Essay on the Inequalities of the Human Races, one of the most racist books ever written (8). Wagner’s music, especially The Ring Cycle, is forever connected to Hitler, the Nazis, and the Holocaust. With the genocide that the supposed German National Myth helped inspire, we should acknowledge its part in a nationalism that devolved into a murderous insanity. Turning back to Andrew Wawn, the effect of translated, published Old North literature was twofold. The first is William Morris, medievalist, socialist, and entrepreneur. The second this the rise of popular fiction set in the Viking Age. Wawn begins his chapter on William Morris with him newly returned from visiting Iceland in 1871 (9). At that time, Morris’ finances and his marriage were in trouble, and that, along with the visit to Iceland, may have affected his work. Wawn points out that Morris was both a poet of original works and a translator of Icelandic Sagas. Much of the rest of chapter is an analysis of his poetry and his translation. There is a short, somewhat unenthusiastic, discussion of Morris’ socialism. Conversely Cusack discusses Morris as a socialist (10), and connects Morris’ fascination with Iceland with his politics. Morris believed that the Viking Age/ Medieval Icelandic Althing, was a sort of proto-model for a socialist-democratic form of government. The poet seems to believe that manual workers of Iceland were the equals of the educated and that they should have a larger in their governance. Government, according to Morris, should enforce this larger participation, and thus support the nation. This was a radical idea in the class-conscious thinking of the English at the height of their Empire. Like Morris, many people from the British Isles visited Iceland during the 19th century. Such visits to Saga locations were very popular (11). What else was popular throughout much of the century was a whole series of fictional novels set in the Viking Age. One novel was H. Rider Haggard’s Eric Brighteyes published in 1889. Another, earlier, novel was Charles Kingsley’s Hereward the Wake published in 1866. Thirdly, there was W.G. Collingwood’s Thorstein of the Mere and the sequel, The Bondwoman, published in 1895 and 1896, respectively (12). These fictions were mostly for young boys and teenagers, and so are sometime written with Victorian lesson in mind. Wawn describes Kingsley’s Hereward as the story of a sort of last of the Vikings, who with his noble savage character is thought to be the ancestor of the English people. At the very least these novels created the popular image of the Viking: a bold adventurer with his own sense of morality and his rowdy, but trusty crew of warriors who thirst for glory of a death that will allow them into Valhalla, Odin’s hall of heroes. Horned helmets are optional, but this image of Vikings survives to the present day. Turning to archaeology, from a narrow point of view, the history of the discipline is a straight forward discussion of personalities and the methods and interpretations they developed. Much of the straight forward discussion would seem innocuous to all but a few interested people. But archaeology was as much a participant in the 19th Century as anything else. In order to determine if archaeology had racist element, a wider point of view is needed, and two phenomenon require explanation. The first phenomenon is Anglo-Saxonism, and its connection to the Viking Age. The second phenomenon is the study of human skulls, called craniology. Using a simply Google search, the following defines Anglo-Saxonism: “Identification with, or belief in the superiority of, England, the English speaking peoples, (and/or) their civilization…”(13). This definition sees the phenomenon as racism. Many believed the invasion and colonization of the Vikings into England as invigorating the Anglo-Saxons, and that here is a “Viking” element within the make-up of the English. This idea will be discussed in more detail below, but the establishment of a Danish colony (The Danelaw) in Early Medieval England is how the Viking Age became part of Anglo-Saxonism. European Racism in the 19th Century was not a haphazard undertaking. Criteria for race, and hence determination of superiority or inferiority, was created. Skin color, eye color, hair color, hair texture, physical stature and skull shape were all at times considered by various scholars of anthropology and ethnology (14). For archaeologists, certain criteria could not be known. However, stature, and especially skull shape was important. The science of Craniology was created. Craniology’s method is to measure a skull and assign it a category. Measured skull were compared to a scale created by Swedish doctor/anthropologist Anders Retzias. Long skulls were called dolichocephatic. Shorts skulls were called brachycephatic. Medium skulls were called mesocephatic. Racists assigned intellectual ability and moral character to a skull (and thus a people) depending on the category. Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and other Northern Europeans of the past had long skulls, as well as white skin, blue eyes, fair hair, and a tall stature. Christian Jurgensen Thomsen of Denmark is probably the best person with which to start a discussion of Scandinavian Archaeology. The son of a merchant, Thomsen worked in what became the National Museum of Denmark as an unpaid curator in the early to mid-19th Century. He is credited with creating the Three Age System—The Stone Age, The Bronze Age, and The Iron Age—which is used to this day. Eskildsen (15) points out that Thomsen was interested in everyday objects and worked to find a progression of technology. Using serration (placing similar objects into a series by noticing changes), Thompson “documented” this progression. The method was innovative, but unfortunately some saw this progression of technology as one nation being superior to another by comparing their technological developments. This interpretation loaned itself to racism. However, no one believes that C.J. Thomsen’s innovations were intrinsically racist. Thompson was succeeded by J.A.A. Worsaae, who perpetuated the Three Age System. The archaeologist also uses the word Viking in his book The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark (16) published in English in 1849. In a footnote, the archaeologist sees Vikings as pirates. Worsaae also states there were no Vikings in Denmark since no ship- burials had been discovered in the country. He believed that Viking Chiefs were buried with their ships, which were found in other parts of Scandinavia. This idea has since been disproven. In the late 1840s, Worsaae visited the British Isles, which resulted in An Account of the Danes and Norwegians in England, Scotland, and Ireland (17) published in 1852. At the end of the part on England, the author discusses the cultural effects of the Danes on Anglo-Saxon England. He writes: “So much, however, is already placed beyond all doubt, that in not a country out of the present homes of Scandinavian race have colonists left such various… and such clear trace of their existence, as the Danes have left in England.” And later: “The Danish power fell, but the population (of England was) completely mixed and saturated with Danish elements.” And still later: “…but it ought not to be forgotten and least of all by Englishmen… that the latter also very essential to win freedom and greatness for England… are in no slight degree sealed with Danish blood.” Worsaae states that the Anglo-Saxon people had decayed due to non-Northern elements being introduced. In this he insinuates that the Saxon people lost themselves when they converted to Roman Catholic Christianity. This thinking is how the Vikings were combined into Anglo-Saxonism. Racism is the result, but I do not believe Worsaae was a racist. Rather, I believe the archaeologist was a nationalist, and was occasionally over-wrought with it. The context here is important. Denmark had two wars with Prussia/Germany during Worsaae’s life. The second, in 1864, lost Southern Denmark—Schleswig and Holstein—to Germany. Oscar Montelius dominated Sweden’s 19th Century archaeological efforts. His contribution to the science is improving the use of chorological typologies. This improvement would have an effect on the next generation of archeologists. Objects dated to the Viking Age are included in two of Montelius’ publications. First is Antiquities Suedosise (18) published in 1873. This work is mostly a catalog, presenting etchings of objects dated to an age, using the Three Age System. Written in French, the word Viking is not used. Montelius’ second work is in English. The Civilization of Sweden in Heathen Times (19) was published in 1888, and divided the Iron Age into four parts. The last part is called “The Part of the Later Iron Age, or the Viking Period.” The author dated the period from about 700 to 1050. The part begins with a short discussion of written sources, with the Sagas being the principle source. Montelius warns the reader of the centuries gap between the events of the Sagas and the recording of those events. The discussion of objects surprisingly notes H. Stople’s work on the island of Bjorko. This is the first mention of Birka I’ve seen, and it would change the archaeological study of the Vikings in Sweden. Montelius’ discussion of the objects presented is cursory. The discussion of Norway’s archaeological efforts in the 19th Century requires the understanding that the country did not rule itself for all of that century. Norway was ruled by Denmark before Napoleon, and then Sweden after Napoleon until 1905. As such the country was ripe for the Romantic Nationalism of Europe. The result of nationalism in Norway was an increased interest in its history. Jon Royne Kyllingstad believes this renewed interest gave rise to the “Norwegian School of History” (20). This school of history believed that Norway dominated Scandinavia in the ancient and medieval past, and that Norwegians practiced a sort of democracy called a Ting (a.k.a The Thing assembly adopted in Iceland). The proponents of this school thought that land-owners had the right, by tradition, to rule, and cited written histories and philological connections to justify such claims. However, The Norwegian School of History was also racist against the Sami, who also lived in Norway. The Sami were an Artic Nomadic people, and so had no claims to land or rule. Also since the Sami were not of Germanic stock, and supposedly technologically inferior to the land owners, they had to be ruled by the superior Germanic Norwegians. With the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species, the Norwegian School of History faded as the century continued. For its nationalism, the School believed that tradition had remained unchanged over the centuries. The new historical thinking believed that change was incremental and inevitable, and the claim of traditional land ownership became invalid. However, racism against the Sami did not fade, according to Kyllingstad (21). Rather in the 1870s and 80s, the new racism used craniology to argue against the Sami. They were seen as having brachycephatic skulls. With these short skulls, the Sami were seen as weak and primitive, where the Germanic Norwegians had long dolichocephatic skulls and were therefore more intelligent and stronger. Yet, with increased physical anthropological research, this racist interpretation faded. Into this context, Oluf Rygh was appointed the first Professor of Archaeology in Norway in 1875. With his professorship, Rygh also became the first head of the University of Norway’s antiquities collection. This was the beginning of archaeology in Norway. Rygh’s most important publication was Norske Oldsager (22). Published in 1885, the book is a catalog organized along the Three Ages System. There is no mention of the Viking Age, but rather there is an Elder Iron Age and a Younger Iron Age. Objects dated to the Viking Age are presented in the Younger Iron Age section. The division between an elder and younger Iron Age is reflected in other Norwegian archaeological publications. Most of these are museum publications, which started in the 1890s (23). Also, just as importantly, human bones and skulls are not included in the archaeological reports. In fact, the only human bones I’ve been able to find in a dig report is in N. Nicolaysen’s book on the Gokstad ship-burial (24) of 1882. Nicolaysen notes the recovery of skull fragments, and states specifically that there isn’t enough of the skull left to determine if it is dolichocephatic or brachycephatic. As far as I’ve seen, use of the “Viking Age” construction didn’t occur in Norwegian Archaeological publications until 1905. It appeared first in the yearbook for the Bergens Museum (25). 1905 is a significant year for Norway. This is when the country gained its independence. Barbara G. Scott believes that the discovery of the Oseberg Ship-burial a couple of years earlier contributed to the Norway’s independence (26). The discovery and excavation of the Oseberg burial can be considered a high point in the archaeology of the Viking Age. Simply put, the burial is a spectacular grave that is intact. Oseberg may have gained Norway its independence, but it also established Norwegian Archaeology as independent and important. The grave allowed the archaeologists to use objects as a body of evidence to justify the historical construct of the Viking Age. English—the word is intentional—Archaeology developed differently than in Scandinavian Archaeology. Any phenomenon of Victorian Britain should be examined with the British Empire firmly in the back ground. The Imperialism of the British Isles is a constant in the 19th Century. Because of this Imperialism, it is important to look at archaeology in relation to disciplines that discussed race. The British had a race theory that was eventually expressed through anthropology, especially physical anthropology (27). The development of that science will be discussed along with the development of archaeology. However, like archaeology, anthropology developed during the same time. To some extent, anthropology is a result of Ethnology—the study of ethnic groups. English Ethnologists were known to excavate barrows along with antiquarians to find human remains, especially skulls. Michael Morse points out that these ethnologists used Thomsen’s Three Age System long before English Archaeologist (28). The Three Age System was introduced to Great Britain by Worsaae when he visited in 1846 to ’47. English Archaeology, however, was still in an antiquarian pastime, whereas Ethology seemed developed, though it must be admitted that the discipline was more dependent on philological evidence rather than human remains. Still, the ethnologists were in a better position to adsorb the Three Age System, when it came to human remains. This was especially true with skulls, since, first, there was a “protocol” for categorizing discussing skulls, and second, many ethnologists were interested in approximately when a people (or “race”) arrived in a geographic area. English Archaeologists, according to Morse, didn’t accept Thomsen’s system until 1864. The archaeology of the British Isles during first half on the 19th Century was to a large extent conducted by self-trained enthusiasts. Most of them were educated professionals or clergy, and of the upper middle gentry. There were exceptions. S. Harrison discusses John Robert Mortimer, a prolific digger of barrows in Yorkshire (29). Being a farmer, he was of a lower class than most other enthusiasts. By the 1850s, archaeology was still an enthusiasts’ pastime. Howard Williams discusses such people as Richard Neville and William Wylie (30), who published their findings. Williams goes into some detail about their Anglo-Saxonism, and states that Neville’s and Wylie’s interpretation was not based upon any method, but on the prejudice of Anglo-Saxonism. Their interpretation was racist. Williams and Sue Content (31) discuss John Younge Ackerman and his work. A contemporary of Neville and Wylie, Ackerman was the secretary of the Society of Antiquaries and published several dig reports. He was as close to a professional archaeologist as the mid-19th Century England had. His book Remains of Pagan Saxondom (32) shows his interest in Anglo-Saxon graves. Published in 1855 Saxondom is about 80 pages long and extraordinarily well illustrated for its day. The introduction presents graves and where the object in them are found. There is no map of any cemetery or drawing of any grave. The author, in the introduction’s second sentence states, “…our heathen Saxon forefathers…” and so connects the Victorians with the Anglo-Saxons. Ackerman believes that the burials and objects found there with Old Northern European cultures, and calls them Teutonic. But Williams and Content state (33), “…this generation of scholars define graves in relation to the contemporary trend of racial theories. Archaeologists employed these poorly defined concepts of race that incorporated ideas from philology, history, ethnology, and biology…” One contemporary of Neville, Wylie, and Ackerman was Dr. Robert Knox, who wrote The Races of Men (34). Knox’s book is based upon a series of lectures, and was published in 1850. His first chapter/lecture is “The History of the Saxon or Scandinavian Race.” The author does not confine himself to the British Isles. The work speaks for itself: “History…shows us in remote time a race of men, differing from all others physically and mentally, dwelt in Scandinavia—say, in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Holstein—on the shores of the Baltic, in fact…” These are the Saxons, who Knox believed lived in Scandinavia. “The Saxon of England is deemed a colonist from Jutland, Holstein, and Denmark. I feel disposed to view the question differently. He must have occupied eastern Scotland and Eastern England as far south as the Humber… The Saxons of these northern coasts of Scotland and England, resemble very closely the natives of the opposite shores; but the Danes and Angles who attacked South England…did not make the same impression on the population.” Knox was Scottish, or so I’ve heard. He continues: “…carrying out the destinies of his race…the Anglo-Saxon, aided by his insular position, takes possession of the ocean, becomes the great tyrant of the sea…” “…the Saxons are a tall, powerful, athletic race of men; the strongest, as a race, on the face of the Earth. They have fair hair, with blue eyes, and so fine a complexion, that they may almost be only absolutely on the face of the globe.” “Thoughtful, plodding, industrious beyond all other races, a lover of labour for labour’s sake; he cares not its amount if it be but profitable; large handed, mechanical, a lover of order, of punctuality in business, of neatness and cleanliness.” “The race in general has no musical ear, and they mistake noise for music. … Prize fights, bull-baiting with dogs; sparring matches; rowing, horse racing, gymnastics: the Boor is peculiar to the Saxon race.” And finally, “Accumulative beyond all others, the wealth of world is in their hands.” Knox continues to discuss the Saxon race’s singular love of liberty and democracy. The author then states that the Saxon race has been broken up and oppressed by other race, and singles out the Celt and the Sarmatian as the dominate European races. Knox particularly refers to the Hapsburghs as imbeciles. This is an attack on Catholicism. But for Knox to equate physical characteristics—good or bad—with any abilities or mental characteristics—good or bad—is racist. Yet, while the blond, blue-eyed description of the Saxon/Scandinavian race is familiar, Knox isn’t quite complete with his criteria. He did not describe the shape of the skull of the races in this work. But by 1877, Craniology was a part of archaeology. William Greenwell’s and George Rolleston’s British Barrows has a long appendix on pre-historic skulls (35). Rolleston first presents 12 skulls, and describes them in detail. Second, Rolleston has a long essay about Craniology that takes at least a couple of readings to understand. The work is very technical, and, really, only someone trained could probably fully understand Rolleston. Barrows is also about graves dated to pre-Roman Britain. Augustus Pitt-Rivers, however, discusses Saxon grave and skulls in 1888 (36). The cemetery was located at Winklebury Hill, about 13 miles south-southwest of Salisbury, in the southwest of England, near Cornwall. 31 inhumation graves were excavated. The objects found there are nothing spectacular. However, Pitt-Rivers discusses the bones and human skulls using a pre-set scale: 3 skulls were “hyperdolischcephalic” (very long), 7 were “dolischcephalic” (long), and 11 were “mesaicecephatic” (medium). The archaeologist reports this, but attempts no interpretation of what this means. Pitt-Rivers does, however, make a reference to a Dr. Beddoes. This is none other than John Beddoes, author of The Races of Britain. A Contribution to the Anthropology of Western Europe (37) published in 1885. Beddoes method was to travel to parts of the British Isles and observe the following characteristics women from about 17 to 18. Finally, he entered all this information into a mathematical equation and gave the geographical area a score.: eye color, hair color and skull shape. The author rejected other classification systems for eyes and hair. For eyes he devised 3 categories, and for hair he devised five. He used a calipers and measuring tape to take skull information. He observed men from age 18 to 20 (or about that), and women from 17 to 18. Having described his method, Beddoes, then present chapters on races that have occupied Scotland, England, Wales, and Ireland, beginning with pre-historic peoples and ending with the Normans. Chapters V and VII, discuss the Anglo-Saxon and the Danes, respectively. With the Anglo-Saxons, the author discusses their Northern European origins, and goes so far as to present an 1878 study of skulls by a Dr. Gildemeister (38). The study included 103 skulls from old burial ground in Bremen. Beddoe presents this information in some detail, showing summation of the measurements and drawings of skull, and then states that “Saxons” and other, related sub-races were all from the same parent race. Beddoe does not spend much time on the Danes. Chapter VII is mostly narrative history, with place-name evidence included. The author uses the Domesday Book, created by the Normans, to discuss the “spread” of the Vikings into England. Yet, unlike the Anglo-Saxons, there is no discussion of the physical characteristics of the Danes and Norwegians. The core of Beddoe’s work is a series of tables that “define” race in certain geographical areas throughout the British Isles. Chapter XIV is the anthropologist’s commentary on them. Beginning with Scotland, the author takes what seems to be a neutral tone, and only describes the physical characteristics (and so the race of origin) of the people there. Yet, while Beddoe remains seemingly neutral, he employs comments from other people to describe the “racial attitudes” of the people. For instance, Mr. Hector Maclean: “The dolicocephalous Celts… is of various sizes, but often tall. … Quick in temper and very emotional , seldom speaking without being influenced by one feeling or another; more quick than accurate in observation; clear thinkers; but wanting in deliberation…” Beddoe then states that Maclean describes the Brachycephalous Celt as, “In this the head is board (comparatively), the profile straight, the cheekbones board and large… The people have strong attachments and feelings, but much forethought and self-control; are gloomy, fervent, humorous.” Still later in the same chapter, Beddoe states: “The mental and moral of the two divisions of the Southern Scots might be the subject of a very interesting inquiry. I will simply point to the fact that strong religious which developed itself in the Covenanters and Cameronians belonged to the West rather than the East.“ And, finally, Beddoe uses Giraldus de Barry, who wrote in the 13th Century to describe the Welsh: “They are inconsistent…mobile; they have no respect for their oaths, for their promises, for the truth: they will give their right hands in attestation of the truth, even in joke: they are always ready for perjury.” By using these authors (and others), Beddoe is showing his prejudices. The mask of objective scientific inquiry is torn. Beddoe equates physical characteristics with the mental ability and the moral/psychological outlook of the people being discussed. He was a racist. A generation later, when the pseudo-science of racism had been more defined, eminent archaeologist William Matthews Flinders Petrie collected skulls, and so is considered a racist (39). Petrie was not interested in Anglo-Saxon history or archaeology, but rather pursued Near-Eastern Archaeology. He is considered brilliant, and has influence even to the present day. Yet, by Petrie’s time, collecting and measuring skulls was considered a routine part of archaeology, since it allowed the determination of the deceased’s race and, to some extent, the level of civilization of the dead. Pitrie was so convinced of this criteria that he contributed his own head to the Royal College of Surgeons upon his death. Yet for all the development of archaeology and anthropology in England, their understanding of the Viking Age was still dependent on the written sources. Three books attest to this (40): G.S. Streatfield’s Lincolnshire and the Danes (1884), Keary’s The Vikings in Western Christendom (1891), and W.G. Collingwood’s Scandinavian Britain (1908). Archaeology is mentioned only in passing in these three books. While the work of archaeologists and anthropologists might have increased the knowledge of the Empire (and defining its racism), popular works such as the three above made no effort to connect the Vikings with the material culture they left in the British Isles. The Viking Age to the Victorian English mind was a curiosity of history that was part of what made Englishmen, but only really that. Lastly, for the sake of being complete, there is German Archaeology. Pre-historic archaeology—that is to say the archaeology of Germans and Germany—is dominated by Gustaf Kossinna. Educated as a philologist and working in a library, Kossinna was an ultra-nationalist, and has been called a racist (41). His settlement theory employed typologies found within a certain geographic area to establish a nation’s traditional lands. This theory was important with Germany, since there was considerable controversy on various areas claimed by the Germans. However, it should also be noted that, as far as I can tell, Kossinna was not interested in the Viking Age. In fact, German archaeological interest in the Vikings does not seem to have occurred until the 1930s and the rise of the Nazies (42). Racism is the belief that physical characteristics, such as skin color or hair texture, reflect the intellectual ability and moral character of a person within a group of people. This essay asks if the historical construction of the “Viking Age” has racist elements in it. To find an answer, the literary and archaeological movements of 19th Century of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, and Germany have been briefly discussed. Many of the subjects in this essay could cause for separate essay by themselves. George Desant’s translations of the Sagas and other work in that area certainly deserve greater examination. The history of English archaeology has probably already been the subject of books, but relating the discipline to something like anthropology is not something I’ve seen. Both archaeology and anthropology are treated separately. Given the above admissions, the safe conclusion is this: I believe the historical construction of the “Viking Age” is the product of antiquarianism and popularized during the post-Napoleonic period of Romantic Nationalism. Concerned nations used the construct for their own purposes. This requires a discussion of each nation and what I see as its purpose. Denmark used “The Viking Age” for a nationalistic purpose. The 19th Century saw the nation attacked and the loss of territory. While Worsaae’s belief about the Viking Age Danes invasion of England may be over-wrought, it is essentially nationalistic. This not to say Worsaae’s statement was correct. It fed into the racist English belief of “Anglo-Saxonism.” Sweden, as far as I can tell, saw the Viking Age as part of their history. Montelius’ discussion of the Vikings is cursory. However, I suspect other, possibly related, disciplines may be different in the study of race. Certainly the Cephatic Index, created by Retzias points towards further inquiry. Norway had the most interesting reaction (the only word I can find) to the construct of the “Viking Age.” Their archaeologists didn’t adopt the idea until 1905, the year when the nation became independent. I’m not sure if the two events are related, but it seems the archaeologists didn’t accept the Construction until they had enough evidence. Still, the Norwegians of the 19th Century had their racist elements. The two racist interludes against the Sami calls for more investigation into their history and their opinion of it. Germany also had a complex relationship with the Viking Age Construction. German archaeologists of the 19th Century had no interest in the subject. German philologists and folklorists, conversely, had a great deal of interest in the Viking Age Construction. The new, comparative philology of people like Jacob Grimm encouraged the collecting, reading, and translating of Old Northern Manuscripts, including the Icelandic Sagas and Myths. If they had a goal, these German Scholars were intent on creating a German National Myth. Elements of Norse Myth and the Icelandic Sagas contributed to this creation. But was the German National Myth racist or merely nationalistic? I believe, as with all myths, that how it was used will answer that question. Germany began the 19th Century as patch-work of sovereign governments, and ended the century as an Empire. Sometime during the century, the national myth of the Germans was used to unify Germany, and then was used in a racist way to justify Empire. The works of the racist Richard Wagner testify to the popularity of the German National Myth, and the results of its use during the 20th Century testify to the Myth’s use for racist ideas. The racism of Victorian England and its Empire is a given. Make no mistake, the British Empire participated in the African Slave trade. But while the English abolished slavery, that doesn’t mean its racism was eradicated. The question here however, is what role did the Viking Age Construction play in English racism? The brief answer is that the construct was blended into an Anglo-Saxonist ideology, which believed that the Englishman were superior due to a genetic heritage dating back some 1500 to 1000 years. How was this ideology was justified by the Viking Age Construction? With archaeology, the answer depends on the role of Craniology. Was Craniology simply a method to identify race, and then used by racists? Or was Craniology a racist method in itself? To many the question is moot, but archaeology is an important source in the study of the Viking Age. Knowing it origins and the mistakes that were made is allow interested people the skepticism needed. The English pursuit of the Icelandic Sagas and Norse Myths diverged into two parts; the popular image of the Vikings, and the academic study of the subject. The popular image of the Vikings and the Viking Age is male, bold, warlike, independent, and romantic. The image is of the hero as the noble savage, and so was probably considered at the core of the English love of freedom. It loans itself to Anglo-Saxonism and so is racist. The academic literary study of the Viking Age is less obviously racist. However, the study finds its origins in the comparative philology of the 19th Century. The new scholarship established a “Pan-Germanic” or “Pan-Teutonic” part of the Indo-European family of languages. This Northern European family of languages included Old German, Old Norse, and Old English (Anglo-Saxon), which at first was nationalistic, but in the hands of the English was blended into the Anglo-Saxonist Ideology. If the study of the Vikings—and hence the Viking Age Construction—was not racist, then it was used by racists. There is probably much more in this history than I’ve present here. I feel as if I’ve only “scratched the surface” of a heavily veneered and waxed history. To find what is a matter of opinion and a matter of fact is the root purpose of a historian. However, in these days when White Supremacists marching and waving the flags of failed ideologies, they are also using symbols of the Viking Age. My question then is timely, but not wholly academic. As usual, however, the answers I’ve found lead to more questions. Notes. 1. Wawn, Andrew. The Vikings and the Victorians. Cambridge, England: D.S. Brewer (2000). 2. Spray, Thomas Edward. Patterns of Nationalist Discourse in the Early Reception of the Icelandic Sagas in Britain. Durham, England: Durham University (2019). This is the author’s PhD. thesis. Found online at Academia.edu. 3. Spray. Ibid. pp 54-79. 4. Wawn. Ibid. Chapters 4 through 7, pp 91-214. 5. Spray. Ibid. pp 54-79 (The Eddas), 124-130 (Laing), 144-147 (Tegner). 6. Halink, Simon. “3.5—Nordic, Germanic, German: Jacob Grimm and the German Appropriation of Old Norse Religion and Myth.” In: The Pre-Christian Religions of the North. Margaret Clunies Ross (ed.). Brepols (2018) 101-130. Found online at Academia.edu. 7. Cusack, Carole. Arts IV. Religious Studies Honours IV. “An examination of the ideologies underlying nineteenth century scholarly researches into the Viking Age.” (1984). This is the author’s thesis. Found online at Academia.edu. 8. Gobineau, Arthur de Comte. The Inequality of the Human Races. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons (1915). This translation is available online, and was published some 60 years after the original, which was written in French. 9. Wawn. Ibid. Chapter 9, pp 245-282. 10. Cusack. Ibid. Chapter 5, pp 54-68. 11. Wawn. Ibid. Chapter 10, pp 283-311. 12. Wawn. Ibid. Chapter 11, pp 312-341. 13. http://www.lexico.com/en/definition/anglo-saxonism. Lexico is run by Oxford University. 14. Lorimer, Douglas. “Theoretical Racism in Late-Victorian Anthropology, 1870-1990.” Victorian Studies. Vol. 31, #3 (1988). 405-430. Found on JSTOR. 15. Eskildsen, Kasper Risbjerg. “Christian Jurgensen Thomsen (1788-1862): Comparing Prehistoric Antiquities.” History of the Humanities. Vol. 4, #2 (2019). Found online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/704813. 16. Worsaae, J.A.A. The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark. (1849). Found online. 17. Worsaae, J.A.A. An Account of the Danes and Norwegians in England, Scotland, Ireland. (1852). Found online. 18. Montelius, Oscar. Antiquities Suedosise. (1873). Found online. 19. Montelius, Oscar. The Civilization of Sweden in Heathen Times. New York: MacMilland and Co. (1888). 20. Kyllingstad, Jon Royne. “The Germanic Race and Norwegian Nationalism.” In: Measuring the Master Race. Physical Anthropology in Norway, 1890-1945. Article found on JSTOR. 21. Kyllingstad. Ibid. pp 29-31. 22. Rygh, Oluf. Norske Oldsager. Christiania, Norway: Forlagt af Alb. Cammermeyer (1885). Found Online. 23. Norwegian museum yearbooks do not just contain archaeological information. The museums were also locations for other sciences, like biology and geology. Hence, looking through these annual publication is something of a chore. Here is a list of the archaeological sections of these publications that I have: --Bergens Museums Aarbog 1905. --Stavanger Museums Aarsberetning. 1891. --Stavanger Museums Aarshefter. 1900 --Stavanger Museums Aarshefter. 1901-1902. --Stavanger Museums Aarshefter. 1902-1903. --Stavanger Museums Aarshefter. 1903-1904. --Tromso Museums Aarshefter. 1902. 24. Nicolaysen, N. The Viking-Ship Discovered at Gokstad in Norway. Christiania, Norway: Alb. Cammermeyer (1882). 25. Shetelig, Haakon. Bergens Museums Aarbog 1905. 26. Scott, Barbara G. “Archaeology and the National Identity: The Norwegian Example.” Scandinavian Studies. Vol. 68, #3 (1996) 321-342. Found on JSTOR. 27. Lorimer, Douglas. “Theoretical Racism in Late-Victorian Anthropology, 1870-1990.” Victorian Studies. Vol. 31, #3 (1988). 405-430. Found on JSTOR. 28. Morse, Michael A. “Craniology and the Adoption of the Three-Age System in Britain.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Vol. 65 (1999) 1-16. 29. Harrison, Stephen. “A Local Hero: John Robert Mortimer and the Birth of Archaeology in East Yorkshire.” Bulletin of the History of Archaeology. Vol. 19, #1 (2009) 4-14. 30. Williams, Howard. “Digging Saxon Graves in Victorian England.” In: The Victorians and the Ancient World. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Scholar Press (2006) 61-80. Found under author’s name of Academia.edu. 31. Content, Sue and Howard Williams. “Creating the Pagan English. From the Tudors to the Present Day.” In: Signals of Belief in Early England. Anglo-Saxon Paganism Revisited. Martin Carver, Alex Sanmark, and Sarah Semple (eds.). Oxbow Books (2010) 181-200. 32. Ackerman, John Yonge. The Remains of Pagan Saxondom. London: John Russell Smith (1852). Found online via Google Books. 33. Content, Sue and Howard Williams. “Creating the Pagan English. From the Tudors to the Present Day.” In: Signals of Belief in Early England. Anglo-Saxon Paganism Revisited. Martin Carver, Alex Sanmark, and Sarah Semple (eds.). Oxbow Books (2010) 181-200. 34. Knox, Robert. The Races of Men: A Fragment. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Lea & Blanchard (1850). Found online via Google Books. 35. Greenwell, William and George Roleston. British Barrows. A Record of the Examination of Sepulchral Mounds in Various Parts of England. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press (1877). Found on online via Google Books. 36. Pitt-Rivers, Augustus. “Excavation of British Barrows and Anglo-Saxon Cemetery, Winklebury Hill.” In: Excavations in Cranborne Chase near Rushmore on the Borders of Dorset and Wiltshire. Volume II. (1888). Found online via Google Books. 37. Beddoe, John. The Races of Britain. A Contribution to the Anthropology of Western Europe. London: Trubner and Co. (1885). Found online via Google Books. 38. Beddoe. Ibid. p 43. 39. Perry, Sara and Debbie Challis. “Flinders Petrie and the Curation of Heads.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. Vol. 38, #3 (2013) 275-289. Found on Academia.edu. 40. Three citations, all of which can be found via Google Books: --Streatfield, G.S. Lincolnshire and the Danes. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. (1884). --Keary, Charles Francis. The Vikings in Western Christendom. London: T. Fisher Unwin (1891) --Collinwood, W.G. Scandinavian Britain. London: The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (1908). 41. Viet, Ulrich. “Gustaf Kossinna and his concept of a national archaeology.” In: Archaeology, Ideology, and Society: The German Experience. Heinrich Harke (ed.). Frankfort am Main: Paul Young (2002) 40-59. 42, Hasfssmann, Henring. “Archaeology in ‘Third Reich’,” In: Archaeology, Ideology, and Society: The German Experience. Heinrich Harke (ed.). Frankfort am Main: Paul Young (2002) 65-140. On page 87 the author states that Nazi promoted German Prehistory and its archaeology in an unprecedented manner. 20